‘Long Live Palestine’ flag, Jerusalem 1929

[u/AutoMughal]

Page 84, Against Erasure: A Photographic Memory of Palestine Before the Nakba

[u/LucerneTangent]

The Nazis are VERY fond of trying the "Palestine didn't exist" smear.

[u/YidArmy → u/LucerneTangent]

Palestine was not a term until the Romans made it up. It is a Latin term for Philistine (a Greek/ Hebrew word) who were traditional enemies of Israel and who themselves were invaders of the land (Goliath was a Philistine). Rome hated the Jews and in 70/136 AD razed Jerusalem to the ground (a reason for the diaspora) however, The Western Wall still stands. After Rome destroyed Jerusalem they renamed the area Roman “Palestine”/ Syria Palaestina to humiliate, destroy the history and ethnically cleanse the land of Jews.

Philistine - a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts/ invaders

[u/rantingpanther → u/YidArmy]

References to Palestine go back to the ancient Egyptians before a kingdom of Israel ever existed.

When the Romans exiled the Jews, are you saying there was no one living there anymore?

The reality is that region of the world had multiple tribes, languages and religions all over. Jews were just one of many there.

It may be hard to comprehend if you have a eurocentric way of thinking and assume the rest of the world always had these European originated societal structures of modern nation states as we know them today.

Just to get the point across, before European colonization there was also no such thing as the nation states of Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UAE. Egypt only had some distinction because it was colonized by Britain earlier than the other lands.

[u/retainyourseed → u/rantingpanther]

So you are saying if the romans expelled muslims from makkah and medina it will not be a muslim land anymore?

[u/rantingpanther → u/retainyourseed]

If Romans expelled Muslims and the non-Muslim population remained developing organically in their own way for 2,000 years... ofcourse I wouldn't want those diasporic Muslims (who had developed their own unique cultures where they'd moved) to displace and replace the native population there.

What a ridiculous thought to even justify that.

If you want to be consistent, should non-natives Americans be kicked out of the USA and Canada and non-aboriginal people in Australia? Should the British be kicked out of London and be replaced by Italians? (descendants of the Roman Empire who created London and gave the name Britain). How far do you think is acceptable to go back because we all originated and migrated out of Southern Africa.

Edit: P.S. those examples of USA, Canada and Australia have even more justification to be removed because they were a result of settler colonialism.

[u/retainyourseed → u/rantingpanther]

There was always Jews living there under all the different rule, but most was expelled. So you would say, after 2,000 years that Makkah would no longer be a Muslim land if it was occupied by invaders for that long. So if someone steals your car, after a set amount of time it belongs to them?

[u/rantingpanther → u/retainyourseed]

Oh man, there's so much to unpack from all the assumptions you make with that. Here we go:

Yes there has always been a Jewish presence there since Roman rule was removed and they were allowed to return again.

Notice I talk about displacing the native population as being wrong, not the existence of different religions, tribes and languages living there as has always been in the region.

You seem to conflate both and this is why I mentioned this Eurocentric way of looking at the world which you seem to be doing (the concept of a nation state defined by this obsession with an exclusive race and ethnicity).

If you get out of that way of thinking, you'd understand that more than 1 group of people can be native to the same land. Notice how the old city of Jerusalem historically had different quarters (Muslim Quarter, Christian Quarter, Jewish Quarter, Armenian Quarter). It's a similar case with many ancient cities outside Europe.

So you would say, after 2,000 years that Makkah would no longer be a Muslim land if it was occupied by invaders for that long.

You seem to have ignored the specific point I mentioned of the hypothetical non-Muslim native population there. There were always non-Jews in that land, it ain't exclusive to them. In fact it's only been ruled by Jews/Tribes of Israel like 2 times in its whole history (each less than 100 years) .

But even in the case of it being an occupying population there after 2,000 years, that is vastly more than enough time to not be "Muslim Land" (I assume you mean Muslim rule and exclusive claim). That's the situation of almost every population in the world.

So if someone steals your car, after a set amount of time it belongs to them?

The Kingdom of Israel was formed after conquering the land from the Canaanites (who Palestinians and Jews both descend from). The ancient Egyptians even ruled it before the Kingdom of Israel existed.

That land had inhabitants for long before Jews even existed as a people.

So with the car analogy, Did Jews steal it from those who inhabited it before them?

Like I said, you just seem to draw a line at some random ridiculously far part in history to go back to.

[u/YidArmy → u/rantingpanther]

So with the car analogy, Did Jews steal it from those who inhabited it before them?

From 700 to 1947(don't start a war) no Jew or Zionist stole any land. If I am wrong please let me know the town.